MainOffender

Not entirely true. Glancing at the list, Ion and MyNetwork TV are both terrestrial. This might help when figuring out which US networks are terrestrial vs cable, and also what kind of reach they have.

I tend to play as whoever is the canon booker and adjust my user talents based on their character.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jonnycosmic" data-cite="jonnycosmic" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48672" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sadly this is true. Annoying, because I was looking forward to playing as NXT as a development fed. I don’t necessarily want to book 6 hours of WWE to get to NXT. <p> </p><p> Plus if I put NXT as a third “B” brand, with NXT TV as a “B” show it’s not going to get the ratings and pop that a Raw or Smackdown would. </p><p> </p><p> Still looking forward to it mind. Just need to figure out what’s best.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think this is still possible. You just need to rebalance the popularity of NXT and their workers. It sounds to me like the mod you've converted has NXT's popularity set too low and their workers set too high. Converting can lead to all kinds of weird stuff. It'll be a minute before modders figure out the best way to simulate this.</p>

Hmm. At least based on what I'm seeing, SWF audiences wouldn't have any problem with you using the Hardcore match aim. You just can't increase the Match Injury or Content Risk beyond average. So, it needs to be somewhat sanitized and it can't be a ~DEATHMATCH... but they can handle hardcore. Now, SWF doesn't factor the Hardcore skill into match grades, because their audience doesn't know what's good, so hiring the best hardcore dudes won't make a difference to your division... but you won't get penalized. EDIT: Also, good thread! EDIT2: Also, that note about SWF not factoring Hardcore skills specifies "Regular" match aims, so they probably would look at them in a match with the Hardcore aim.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="jgriff3029" data-cite="jgriff3029" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div> I also like to play historical mods and have an idea or situation come up where a certain worker would fit into what I want to do, so I edit there contract to make them available.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Unless I'm missing something, you can still do this.</p><p> </p><p> EDIT: Beaten to the punch!</p>

I'd be very curious to see the product set-ups people were using in 16 that now can't be replicated. Send them to me here or via PM so I can waste more of my time running tests on a wrestling simulation. Seriously.

Love the colored buttons.

Totally agree. I didn't try to figure out what triggers the penalty. I'm not sure whether it's better addressed under the hood in products or in the database itself by messing with worker stats. Your specific example about Atherton is particularly glaring. Definitely not balanced! A lot of good points here and I think this discussion is worth having. I think we should pick nits and get into the weeds because that's what this feature demands. (If Adam implements a system where we can edit products by adding/deleting penalties, I will have wasted sooo many words but I would be very happy.) I don't think the current Product system is perfect by any means, but I do feel that a lot of the problems are stemming from 1) consequence descriptions that aren't easy to decipher and 2) player expectations about penalties not being managed. With regards to the specific notes you mentioned: - Fans expect dangerous, gimmicky matches at all times All this means is your Injury Risk needs to be set to High. You can still run Regular matches or Comedy matches without triggering this penalty. - severely penalize comedy matches In the specific case of FMW, this is probably too harsh. However, I think a better way to look at the penalty isn't that you shouldn't run any Comedy matches, but that the Comedy matches you do run will inherently score less than the more on-brand content. Like those FMW shows weren't main eventing with those goofy lucha matches, right? Now, the harshness of the penalties themselves or the idea that a user would want to book anything that would cause a penalty is a game design issue that I think needs more thought. - require that all matches be aimed as Deathmatch, Hardcore, Wild Brawl, Car Crash, or Mayhem Same as above. You can book other stuff (I think) but it won't rate as well. Kind of like how guys with low Hardcore skills aren't as valuable to FMW; matches that veer away from the house style won't be either. Also, maybe part of the problem here is the FMW tags aren't applied to the best product. Check out Hardcore Evolved or Junior-Deathmatch Combined. Do those better fit what you're looking for? EDITED TO ADD: Also, just because we might find a product that fits one definition of FMW doesn't mean these problems are solved! I just think it's useful to really dig into this. From a game design perspective, I think the goal here was to stop users from tweaking products with the mindset of removing penalties. Not because Adam wants to penalize everyone, but because those products end up very same-y and middle of the road, and users are thus missing out on the richness potentially offered by product variety. I think that's a good goal! But, the way it's presented right now doesn't feel very fun and often comes off as a handcuff.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="southside_hitmen" data-cite="southside_hitmen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'll pick a few specific cases just for giggles, but again, <strong>I want to reiterate, the fact that I (or anyone else) have to answer this question to "prove" what is "right" for a product is the entire problem itself</strong>.<p> </p><p> - Why is a product tailor made for Big Japan (Slobberknocker-Deathmatch Combined) not tagged for them when I search by name, then not good for either the strong or death match division?</p><p> - Why does the default product for ACPW hate the majority of people on the starting roster?</p><p> - Why does the default product when you search for FMW only include 100% death matches (did Hayabusa or Megumi Kudo not exist?)?</p><p> </p><p> Again, it's totally reasonable that those 3 above are setup prefectly to your expectations. And that's great for you.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> First, let me just say, you don't have to prove anything to me. You don't like it and that's totally cool. I'm not sure I like it either! We're just spit-balling here. But let me tackle the three examples you listed, because I don't think they have that much to do with how the Products actually function.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Big Japan</strong> -- I don't know why this isn't tagged but that's just an annoying oversight. As for the product itself, I'm not sure what specifically you mean by it not being good enough. Looking it over, I do think the content risk setting "Fans will be upset by..." needs to be upgraded so you can actually run Deathmatches. That seems like the kind of easy/logical fix Adam would be receptive to.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>ACPW </strong>-- This is a problem that I think should've been play-tested better so that promotions with a vocal fanbase didn't shit on such a high percentage of their talent out of the gate. This can be done in the Product settings OR on the database side. However, I do think every roster like this should have a few guys that piss off the fans for the sake of a challenge, thus making that note worthwhile. </p><p> </p><p> <strong>FMW </strong>-- I get two Products when I search the FMW tag. Neither are 100% Deathmatch. </p><p> </p><p> Again, I'm not trying to attack you or pick apart your requests. I'm genuinely curious what, specifically, people are interested in customizing.</p>

I just ran a quick test of this using Family Friendly Pro Wrestling which has the "Lengthy matches will tend to lose the audience" note. I tested in to "too long" penalty range which is between 21-25 minutes. As with all my "analysis," I'm using very small sample sizes and there are a lot of factors that could be skewing things. Anyway, all the matches received roughly the same grade at 21 minutes as they did at 25 minutes (plus or minus literally one or two points). The exception was the main event, which did significantly better at 21 than 25, but I think I hit on some bonuses so I wouldn't read too much into that. Basically, if I had to guess, I'd say there's not much of a curve.

It's six minutes that triggers the penalty in companies that expect short angles, not five. But yeah, I think that one is needlessly restrictive. I don't think determining the features of a Product are nearly as subjective as you're making them out to be, but I do appreciate feeling like a layer of customization has been stripped away and replaced by a system that feels extremely restrictive. I am curious, though, what products you would make or how, specifically, you would tweak the existing ones? I made a giant post about this in the Suggestions forum that pulls out all the exact language of the Product options that should facilitate this discussion. My hunch is that some players simply want to limit the amount of penalties they're getting and they might be better served focusing on in-game Preferences than Products.

I just ran two Rumbles using the first 30 guys in alphabetical order from TCW. Set the match length as 56 minutes, the minimum default time for the default Rumble. First I used the Classic Mainstream Puroresu product (lol) which has no penalties for match length. Got a 68 rating. Then, I tried PG Rated Sports Entertainment, which has the same "Lengthy matches will tend to lose the audience" setting as Attitude Entertainment. Booked the same match and triggered the "this match was far too long for our fans" penalty, which is the worst of the length penalties. The rating was 62. So, basically, with all the various pluses/minuses that go into a match that big, the length penalty is ultimately negligible.

I agree with all of this and, to reiterate, think the issue with match length is more centered around user psychology than accurate simulation. That said, the Royal Rumble is a weird beast because, while you're right that it's rarely "a good match" (although, uh, I loved this year's?), it's the highlight of the wrestling calendar for a lot of fans. I think that prestige/excitement can be reflected in other ways, but I understand why people might find that length penalty hard to stomach. On a realism level, fans don't complain that the Rumble is too long.

Not to harp on something that I already made a massive thread about, but I think TEW players in general are too frightened of getting penalties. But -- at the same time -- the way the Products are presented feels more punitive than fun. But yeah, totally agree with the expectations for WWE-style booking.

This most likely had to do with your injury risk settings on the match type you chose/created. For SWF, they need to be set as Average. It's possible to create a tame version of a Steel Cell match for them with Average injury risk. You should test this and report back. I don't think it's a problem with the product. See, I disagree. Iron Man matches in Attitude or PG era products should be dinged for length because they are BORING. Now, book the right people in it, and you'll overcome those penalties with bonuses. Users should be weighing these pros/cons when booking a match like that.

The thing about the Royal Rumble has already been pointed out to you. Hopefully that kind of match can be given an exemption for the length. Your question isn't really fair, though, because the point is people DO want to use those specific products. The length penalties are attached to some of the most common products for WWE -- Attitude Entertainment and PG Rated Sports Entertainment. Now, I think these penalties are fair/accurate (expect in a fringe case like the Royal Rumble) but that's why people are complaining.

This is a very good idea! It would let users utilize more features while still enforcing a product's identity. I'd also add that the penalties for tainted/cheap finishes do have some utility for users, particularly if you're booking a series of matches between the same wrestlers. Intentionally holding back the rating with unclear finishes will potentially help a final match clear a repetitive booking penalty. But, again, here we're navigating a pile of penalties which doesn't feel great.

<p>I wasn’t sure whether to post this in General Discussion (because I think it has useful information) or here in Suggestions (because it has… suggestions). Anyway, I went down a rabbit hole of studying the new products (remember when we could go outside???) and these are my findings. I went through and compiled all the product "consequences" and then attempted to figure out 1) how to trigger them and 2) how severe are the penalties. </p><p> </p><p> My findings aren’t guaranteed to be accurate obviously (I am not Adam) and in particular my numbers are rough estimates. That said, this does get under the hood a bit so if you’re the kind of player who doesn’t want to know how the sausage is made (does such a sweet little angel exist?) turn back now. Also, I did all my testing on Beta #3 so if things have changed since then I’ll just go kick rocks. At the very least, this document should be useful for people looking to design custom products. </p><p> </p><p> Here’s my TL;DR thoughts before I start going through the individual consequences. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"><strong>1) </strong></div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;">I didn’t think the old Product system was good and was looking forward to this upgrade. I think tailor made products are better than individually made products, largely because those user-made products all end up very same-y to avoid penalties and don’t explore the game. </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"><strong>2) </strong></div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;">Players, myself included, are too worried about avoiding penalties. </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"><strong>3) </strong></div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;">That said, the new products are too focused on punitive consequences. </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"><strong>4) </strong></div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;">I’d hoped choosing a product would feel like choosing a civilization in Civ. Fun and flavorful. Instead, it largely feels like choosing which combination of penalties you hate the least. </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><p></p><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"> </div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;"><strong>5) </strong></div></div><div style="margin-left:25px;"><div style="margin-left:25px;">With some tweaks, I still think this could turn out great!</div></div><p> </p><p> Let’s dive into the various sections of CONSEQUENCES:</p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>-LUCHA DE APUESTA-</strong></p></div><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p><strong> (Special effect) A lucha de apuesta is a big deal and is taken very seriously.</strong> I’m not sure why this is formatted differently than the other consequences or positioned at the top while it’s also covered at the bottom. That said, this is great! It immediately gives flavor to lucha companies. It’s also the only (special effect) in the game. </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong> -MATCH RATIO-</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans will expect events to be ___% matches and ___% angles.</strong></p><p><strong> The fans will expect TV shows to be ___% matches and ___% angles. </strong></p><p> </p><p> Happily, these are still flexible, so you can squeeze an angle or two in even when your product is 100% matches. Send ‘em home, Okada.</p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>-MATCH RATINGS-</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p><strong> Matches are rated on a ratio of between __:__ in-ring action/popularity. </strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong> Matches are rated on a ratio of between __:__ and __:__ in-ring action/popularity depending on what gets the rest rating.</strong> I really like how clearly this is laid out and the variation throughout. This gives products some interesting identities, particularly something like Guerilla Warfare that rates in-ring performance heavily or REALLY HEAVILY. I think that’s the only product with two ratios on the same side of 50:50. I’d like to see that mechanic further explored.</p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong> --MATCH INTENSITY—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>The style is very easy on the workers and so produces far less wear and tear on their bodies over time..</strong></p><p><strong> This lucha-based style is easy on the workers and so produces much less wear and tear on their bodies over time.</strong></p><p><strong> This is a very physical style of wrestling and can be hard on the bodies of the workers over time.</strong></p><p><strong> This intensely physical style results in a high level of wear and tear on the bodies of the workers.</strong></p><p><strong> This style is hard on the workers due to its physical intensity and the risk of injury from all the high-impact moves.</strong></p><p><strong> This hardcore style leads to a high level of general wear and tear on the bodies of the workers and injuries are also common.</strong></p><p><strong> This dangerous style is punishingly hard on the bodies of the workers.</strong></p><p> </p><p> Good, good. Beat up your wrestlers. Moving on…</p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong> --MATCH RISK—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> FYI -- Your road agent will warn you about faulty match set-ups but not if your risk is too high. This is why you’re fired, Arn.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans expect straight match types with no gimmicks.</strong> I can’t figure out what this note does or how to upset the fans who want it. You can’t use high content or injury risk, but that’s covered below. Match set-ups like cage, barbed wire, etc, are also covered elsewhere. I was able to book gimmick finishes like First Blood and multi-man matches like triple threats without penalty with this note on in a Faux MMA company. I would think those would be the “gimmicks” so maybe this isn’t hitting the way it should? Lacks clarity!</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans will be upset by dangerous, controversial, or bloody match types. </strong>Can’t go beyond average content risk or injury risk without triggering “Extremely poor match type.”</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans will be put off by match types that are too extreme.</strong> Can’t go beyond average content risk or injury risk without triggering “Poor choice of match.” Here’s the first case we have of scaling penalties. But would a user ever use a High Risk match regardless of how soft the penalty? I’d argue no. Instead, would it be better to let users at this level access High Risk (but not Very High which is reserved for true hardcore?). </p><p> </p><p><strong> Fans are open-minded and will accept any match type.</strong> I trust this does what it says and didn’t test. </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans will be put off by boring match types. </strong>You need to have your injury risk set at medium.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans expect dangerous, gimmicky matches at all times.</strong> You need to have your injury risk set at high. </p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--MATCH LENGTH—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Only matches less than 5 minutes have a cap on how high of a rating they can achieve.</strong></p><p><strong> Matches less than 10 minutes have caps on how high of a rating they can achieve.</strong></p><p><strong> Matches less than 15 minutes have caps on how high of a rating they can achieve.</strong></p><p><strong> Matches less than 20 minutes have caps on how high of a rating they can achieve.</strong></p><p> </p><p> The hidden caps were always a major cause of consternation in TEW16 so I’m glad they’re easily viewed and that we can now book red hot 8 minute Lesnar matches. However, the same clarity isn't there with the long match penalties. There are three levels of length penalty – a little too long, too long, and far too long. I didn’t bother to test the penalty size on matches that are far too long because what user would dare?? </p><p> </p><p> Let me reiterate here – my penalty estimates aren’t exact. </p><p> </p><p><strong> Longer matches will not do well in this environment.</strong> Actually, you can run a match up to 25 minutes without a problem. That 26th minute will cost you about 8 points to the rating (“a little too long”). Go up to 33 minutes and you’re looking at a 19 point penalty for being “too long.” 40 minutes is “far too long.” </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Lengthy matches will tend to lose the audience.</strong> 15 minutes and under is safe. 16-20 is “a little too long” and costs 5 points. 21-25 is “too long” and costs 11 points. This consequence has seen some discussion as it’s tied to the Attitude Era product. I think it’s fair! You can still book a 20 minute slow build and only suffer a small penalty. But all those horny teens in their South Park t-shirts DO NOT want your Iron Man match.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>The fans tend to have short attention spans, so longer matches will not do well.</strong> Penalties once again kick in at 16/21/26 minutes but are harsher, going up to 8/17/?? </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans expect matches to be short and will get bored if they go long. </strong>Same deal as above except the penalties are a scooch higher (9/19/??) so they could fall into the margin of error for my tests. Also, like, this is applied to Stoner Entertainment and if stoners actually had short attention spans jam bands wouldn’t exist, so…</p><p> </p><p> <strong>The fans expect important matches to be quite lengthy.</strong> Important matches appear to be any match with a Major Star or Star, even against people classed as Unimportant. That’s not consistent with the definition of important match we’ll see later. Minimum time here is 20 minutes. There are levels to this penalty as well but I didn’t seek them out. </p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--FINISHES--</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans expect clean finishes to matches. </strong>Fans hate tainted finishes (23 point penalty) and cheap finishes bomb (47 point penalty!). The only sense this note makes is for wrestling that’s trying to pass as legitimate sport, like Faux MMA or some Toots Mondt 1930s all-day hugfest. For the fans to be this mad, they need to believe it’s real. Matches where using a foreign object will legit get you arrested. I like that we have this consequence available, but it needs to be used very judiciously in any product beyond, say, the 1960s. Even the 60s era JWA had count outs all the time and their fans didn’t melt down. </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Fans would be put off by cheap endings to matches.</strong> Fans were turned off by tainted finishes (14 point penalty) and hated cheap finishes (23 point penalty). I think this is much better as a puro penalty. Yes, New Japan has cheating and DQs, but those largely aren’t the MEMORABLE matches. This helps assure the highest scoring matches will be clean. All that said, I still think this penalty is TOO harsh and should come down to like 10/15. </p><p> </p><p> I didn’t mess with any of the Overbooking notes, but here they are because this post isn’t long enough. You either Overbook, or you don’t basically. </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Matches that are overbooked will be penalized unless they’re really good. </strong>OH! But I do want to call attention to this phrasing because I’d love to see more of it. LET US BREAK THESE RULES! But only if the match is really good. </p><p> <strong>Fans will be put off by overbooked matches.</strong></p><p><strong> Overbooked matches will really annoy the fans.</strong></p><p><strong> Overbooked matches will infuriate the fans.</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--DON’T USE THESE MATCH AIMS—</strong></p></div><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>______ matches will get (mildly penalized/penalized/severely penalized). </strong>There’s one for every Match Aim and three levels each. These basically serve as a guide of what not to do, which isn’t particularly exciting. If you tell me my Wild Brawls will be penalized, I’m never booking one, even if the penalty is mild. What scenario could motivate me to do that? I like using Match Aims but largely just from a roleplay perspective. In TEW16, I felt like their bonuses were either unclear or too weak, and more often than not I’d be better off just using a Regular match. So, what’s the point of having three penalty levels here if most players will never take the chance to book a Match Aim from this list?</p><p> </p><p> Also, cinematic-style matches have “heavily” penalized on some products and “severely” penalized on others. Not sure if they needed a 4th level of penalty for some reason or if that’s just a mistake. </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong> --MATCH SET-UPS—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p><strong> Match set ups other than steel cage will be severely penalized</strong></p><p><strong> Only basic match set ups (like cages) are acceptable; others will be penalized</strong></p><p><strong> Only basic match set ups (like cages) and high flying aids (like ladders, overhead wires) are acceptable; others will be penalized</strong></p><p><strong> Dangerous match set ups will be penalized</strong></p><p><strong> Ultra-dangerous match set ups (like glass or explosives) will be penalized </strong></p><p> </p><p> Self-explanatory and working well!</p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--ANGLES—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Angles need to be short of they’ll lose the crowd.</strong> Ooof, this one. With this active, you’re looking at 5 minutes max for your angles. Anything over gets you an 11 point penalty. I couldn’t tell if the penalty scales the longer you go but, if it does, it’s not too steep. Still, 11 points for that extra minute is harsh and very limiting, especially when meaningful angles have a floor of 4 minutes. The penalty also doesn’t appear to change based on the attributes rated, so 10 minutes of boring Microphone work gets the same penalty as 10 minutes of Fighting around ringside with glitter cannons. There are a ton of exciting adjustments to how we book angles in this year’s game – let us use them! There’s a lot of room to rework this or break it up into different penalties depending on what attributes are being rated. </p><p> </p><p><strong> Risky angles will not go down well.</strong> Avoid high risk angles, ya perv.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Angle roles rated on sex appeal will be penalized.</strong></p><p><strong> Angle roles rated on sex appeal will be severely penalized.</strong></p><p><strong> Angles that are primarily based on sex appeal have their overall rating limited.</strong></p><p><strong> Angles that are primarily based on sex appeal have their overall rating severely limited.</strong></p><p> </p><p> There’s been a lot of discussion on this already and I’m firmly on the side of “penalize sexy people” so I didn’t spend much time on it. I will say, the existence of these notes show that it’s possible for more variation on angle penalties to exist. For instance, instead of capping all angles for the Attitude Era, what if we had something like: </p><p> </p><p> Angle roles rated on Microphone will be severely penalized</p><p> Angles that are primarily based on Microphone have their overall rating limited</p><p> </p><p> Which would simulate the death of the backstage promo and the boredom of fans with talking heads, but keep our ability to use Entertainment or Fighting? I think there are way to better simulate what types of angles a product uses, beyond just broad caps. </p><p> </p><p> Or, what if we REWARDED behavior instead of punishing it? Something like “High Risk Entertainment angles will do well here.” Worried this would get spammed? That's what the match/angle ratios are for!</p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--GIMMICKS AND STORYLINES—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> Mostly self-explanatory!</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Gimmicks will have no impact.</strong></p><p><strong> Gimmicks will not be necessary, but will have an impact if used.</strong></p><p><strong> All workers will be expected to be using a gimmick or there will be a small penalty.</strong></p><p><strong> All workers will be expected to be using a gimmick or there will be a penalty.</strong></p><p><strong> All workers will be expected to be using a gimmick or there will be a large penalty.</strong></p><p><strong> The fans will expect there to be ongoing storylines.</strong></p><p><strong> The fans will expect there to be lots of ongoing storylines.</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong> Major matches will be penalized if they don’t have an associated storyline. </strong>Unlike in the Match Length section, here the minimum qualification for a major match is Star vs Recognizable. It’s about a 9 point penalty if triggered. </p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--DO USE THESE MATCH AIMS—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Each show will need at least one match aimed as _____. </strong>These are my favorite notes. Make us use all the fun options built into the game. And there are some new ones I don’t remember from TEW16:</p><p> </p><p> <strong>All matches should be aimed as Deathmatch, Hardcore, Wild Brawl, Car Crash, or Mayhem.</strong></p><p><strong> A minimum of half the matches on each show need to be aimed as Deathmatch. </strong>Should any other products be tailored this way? Right now it’s only Deathmatch.</p><p> <strong>Each show will need at least three different match aims to be used. (Regular, Work the Crowd, Calm the Crowd, Lift the Crowd don’t count toward the total).</strong> Yes, omg, put it in my veins. I really feel like this should be added to the Wrestling Nerd Nirvana product. Right now it’s only on the No-Style Style product and that one is, shall we say, not inspired.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Each show may only have a maximum of two matches aimed as Comedy.</strong> Hey, how’d you get in here, buzzkill? </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong> --SKILL CHECKS—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>The Hardcore skill will not be used in regular match calculations.</strong> Wouldn’t expanding this beyond Hardcore create more diverse rosters for both the players and the AI? I used TCW for all my tests, changing the product to a bunch of different things, and got very similar (often identical) ratings for the same match across different products. Wouldn’t that have changed if their top-line (left column now ugh?) skills were weighed differently? I know I’ve spent a lot of time advocating for less punishment, but I also want these products to feel more alive. Shouldn’t the Technical skill be less effective in a Slobberknocker product? Shouldn’t Aerial be less effective in Catch Wrestling?</p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--BROADCASTING—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>The company will be extremely limited in the broadcast time slots that they can get</strong></p><p><strong> The company will be limited in the broadcast time slots that they can get</strong></p><p> </p><p> The usual here. </p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--FAN BASE—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> <strong>The fan base will be very opinionated and will turn on workers they don’t feel belong.</strong> I didn’t dig too deep into this one but, judging by reports around the forum, rosters really need to be checked/adjusted to support this note. Or else the note itself needs to be toned down. Also, again, couldn’t there be a positive version of this note? A fan base that becomes attached to their favorites? </p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--THE REST—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> The rest of the Product consequences are self-explanatory or carry-overs from TEW16. I’m just going to list them here in case anyone is using this encyclopedia-ass post to cherry-pick descriptors for a custom product. </p><p> </p><p> <strong>The company will find it very difficult to attract sponsors</strong></p><p><strong> The company will find it difficult to attract sponsors</strong></p><p><strong> The company will be attractive to sponsors</strong></p><p><strong> The company will be very attractive to sponsors</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong> Attendance levels are slightly affected by the state of the wrestling industry</strong></p><p><strong> Attendance levels are strongly affected by the state of the wrestling industry</strong></p><p><strong> Attendance levels are very strongly affected by the state of the wrestling industry</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong> Using crazy bumps or stunt bumps give big boosts to segments</strong></p><p><strong> Using crazy bumps or stunt bumps give boosts to segments</strong></p><p><strong> Using stunt bumps give boosts to segments but fans do not like to see crazy bumps</strong></p><p><strong> Fans are put off by the use of crazy bumps and stunt bumps in segments</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong> Comedy based gimmicks can be used even by Stars and Major Stars</strong></p><p><strong> Most Comedy based gimmicks cannot be used by Stars or Major Stars</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong> Unmasking a wrestler has little significance and does not add heat to a segment</strong></p><p><strong> Having a wrestler be forced to unmask will add some heat to a segment</strong></p><p><strong> Having a wrestler be forced to unmask is a big deal in this company</strong></p><p><strong> Fans would hate the gimmickiness of having someone shaved bald as a forfeit</strong></p><p><strong> Having someone shaved bald as a forfeit can add a little heat to a segment</strong></p><p><strong> Having someone shaved bald as a forfeit adds heat to a segment</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><div style="text-align:center;"><p><strong>--CONCLUSION—</strong></p></div><p></p><p> </p><p> If you read this far… I’m sorry? Hopefully some of this was interesting and/or useful. My final thought is that TEW20’s product system has a ton of potential, but right now it’s not balanced or colorful enough to make up for the freedom players feel they’re losing.</p>

<p>I've been booking a bunch of shows to test things out and had a couple of thoughts. Obviously, these suggestions are based only on my specific behavior as a player.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>ROAD AGENT NOTES:</strong> I'm spending almost all my time on the left side of the screen and I'm double-clicking to add the notes I want. I have never used the Add Road Agent note button, except for when I click it accidentally in the hopes it will close the window. When I'm done adding notes, hiking my beleaguered pointer all the way over to the right (when I've been on the left so much) feels like a long, slow distance. I think this screen would be improved with the addition of a centrally located, prominent close button. </p><p> </p><p> <strong>SEGMENT ARROWS:</strong> This one might not be feasible. When I have the main screen for a segment open, I'd love to be able to page directly to the next/previous segment (assuming one has already been booked) similar to how we're now able to page through our rosters. This would save me from needing to go back to the overview of the entire card. In theory, paging would also save any changes I've made and prompt road agent intervention, just like clicking the Book Segment button does now. This would be a great assistance when ironing out the kinks in an auto-booked card.</p>

I was hoping to avoid turning the auto save off because I want the security of that feature with the freedom to cheat whenever I want. But this will do! Fellows in scummery... thank you.

Obviously this is very pretty but could you implement any of this using the system/language/whatever that the game is actually built on? I'm guessing no. I am also not happy with the UI, but I think it's pretty insulting to assume the designers are operating from a place of complete ignorance regarding modern design. They did what they could within the limitations of the platform and are now going to try to adjust based on feedback. I'm excited to see where that goes. But I think we need to accept it won't be at the eye candy level posted here. This mock-up - which is frankly better than some AAA menu designs - is a mirage. You might as well include a space for 3D renderings of the matches you book.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Chikbot" data-cite="Chikbot" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I've been playing TEW since the very early days bruh. <p> It's the Coronavirus bringing everyone in, don't be like that...</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's also the fact that the board forces you to register to lurk now. Everyone's been forced to get accounts, might as well post! Don't understand the attitude of dismissing new posters (even if they're dicks). </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Rawisericho" data-cite="Rawisericho" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>According to Adam, the new interface isn’t a problem, it’s just a “vocal minority” of users who dislike it. I’d say it’s about 80% of this board.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> To be fair, he was referring to a vocal minority advocating for a "complete overhaul."</p>

<p>A little thing, obviously. But could a "back to menu" button be added to the screen when running a show? </p><p> </p><p> In TEW16, when running a show it was possible to hit the back button and return to the main menu. Then, you could reload your save and start the show again from the top. Dirtbag behavior that might get me called out in the player's handbook? Perhaps! But it was extremely handy when I forgot to, say, trigger a gimmick change or accidentally booked Michael Cole in a wrestling match. </p><p> </p><p> This is still possible in TEW20! You just have to close the game entirely and restart. A back to menu button would save me some clicks.</p>

Honestly, I don't watch every week and I'm certainly not taking notes! But I remember squashes from Nyla Rose, Hager, PAC, etc. I went to their site and clicked a random show from November where Cody squashes Matt Knicks. My point is -- the squash match hasn't gone out of style just because AEW also books long matches and is still a completely viable way or getting people over and/or keeping them on-screen. I don't want to derail this convo, though, so no more AEW posts from me!

I think doing this could actually hurt a guy's personality in TEW -- make them egotistical, etc -- so there was SOME penalty. Good analysis overall, though. I really like the new system. Hmm. AEW has squashes, like, every week? Brodie Lee? Wardlow? Out there squashing dudes. New Japan functions a bit differently with the young lion system (so new guys become known through that) and by incorporating lesser known people into six/eight-man tag matches. I think both styles are viable. I will say I think maybe the penalties for overuse you're experiencing could be toned down, although I haven't seen them myself. I don't think those really illustrate flaws in the Perception system, though. Also, I generally think players need to become more comfortable with getting penalties.