Hive

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You'd effectively be handing any competent booker a constant bonus to their attendance just for being organised.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Wouldn't that actually be quite reasonable?</p><p> </p><p> I was pleased to see pre-booking return - but without any positive effects from it, I personally doubt I'll be using it.</p>

<p>Very interesting changes indeed that I look forward to tinkering with.</p><p> </p><p> </p><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="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know you mentioned the list isn't final on the list of different booking styles, so as a hope that we get some variance within the different basic/puro/lucha styles here are the actual match ratios of real world companies over the past 2 years (Yes, I'm a maniac and have actually charted these off of cagematch for every company in Real World Chronicles).<p> </p><p> I'm happy to do these at a historical level (i.e. 90's AJPW) if it will help as well.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's funny, I actually recently started doing the same - for the mid 90's. I didn't think anyone else would go to such lengths. <img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> I second that we need variances between the different "puro" companies, for example. While I didn't go through the entire year for either company, and based my calculations on just 13 shows for each company, the difference between AJPW and NJPW in 1995 was quite significant:</p><p> </p><p> AJPW had 36 % 1v1 matches, NJPW had 54 %.</p><p> AJPW had 40 % 2v2 matches, NJPW had 39 %.</p><p> AJPW had 24 % 3v3 matches, NJPW had 7 %.</p>

Captain Marvel didn't see much screentime because the movie was all about the original Avengers and seeing their story off. Giving a character we only first saw a month ago centerpiece in an epic storyline told over 11 years would have been way off. They did the right thing there - though in hindsight, they should perhaps even have held her off untill the next phase. You don't think Marvel does the female characters justice? Uhm... Black Widow, Nebula and Gamorra in the last two movies haven't been given great arcs in your opinion? Agree to disagree, I guess. I agree. Worst part of the movie for me. And not because I dislike the female characters at all; a certain female character's showdown with Thanos was one of my favorite moments in the big battle. And there were other big moments for me in the movie involving females that I won't go spoilery on here. Heck, I actually enjoyed Captain Marvel a lot as well - even though I agree with those criticizing the way the character is portrayed. Was Endgame better than Infinity War for me? Not sure. There were some things I would have liked to see go down differently and some things I was disappointed that we didn't get to see, which I had expected to see. But it's certainly one of their best movies. As for the future of the MCU, I'll admit to being a bit concerned. I just don't feel that B-list characters like Black Widow, Shang Chi and The Eternals will be able to fill the void. And while I love Tom Holland's portrayal of both Spider-Man and Peter Parker, Homecoming was a huge disappointment for me. So I dare not get my hopes too high for Far From Home.

<p>I'm soooo ready for stable logos after finding this gem. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/cool.png.f00d2562b2c1d873a09323753efdb041.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> <img alt="dodshirt_2263.jpg" data-src="https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/dodshirt_2263.jpg" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

The announcement didn't describe the feature as coming out of the closet, but as changing sexuality. Biiiig difference. And me, being sort of like Drax, read it literally and did not look for interpretations. Anyway, it's done with, Ryland removed the feature. No reason to beating around a dead horse.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels" data-cite="shawn michaels" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Question to Adam: Hoping there is some kind of control or turn on/off for the sexuality feature, to be able to avoid too much unrealistic scenarios in RW mods. Is that, or could it be, a possibility?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I second this. I will never, ever play the game with this feature as a possibility. I mean, it doesn't even have a single real life case to justify it, so its' inclusion boggles my mind. But eh, as long as I can disable it...</p>

I've never been a fan of micromanagement just for the sake of having micromanagement. For the vast majority of players, being able to tinker with products as detailed as previously possible probably doesn't really add much to the gaming experience. Heck, for many of the people complaining, I bet it's about wanting to be able to do it <em>because they can</em> - not so much because they need it for their gaming experiences.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="edenborn" data-cite="edenborn" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Even when WCW hired Vince Russo to more-or-less copy WWF Attitude, there were slight but meaningful differences between what the two companies were selling.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> The difference was risque. WCW weren't allowed much at that point.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ShaunGBD" data-cite="ShaunGBD" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What I wanna know</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Ryland already answered that.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="James Casey" data-cite="James Casey" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What exactly you might call WCW's product after 1999 is for a whole other product!</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Crash TV.</p>

<p>Today's entry on products is interesting. As a modder, I agree that the current system in 2016 - while flexible - could be a challenge to use.</p><p> </p><p> Question: will the AI be able to change product during the game? And will it be possible to set up narratives that changes the product of an AI company?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Mostly because Strong Style implies a Japanese link or influence whereas Impactful is a more open-ended definition that can be used globally.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think Strong Style had been more recognizable across the board. And Luchador works well in spite of the obvious link to Mexico.</p><p> </p><p> Questions:</p><p> </p><p> 1. What category would a Spot Monkey belong to?</p><p> </p><p> 2. Can you give us examples of a real world Striker and a Technical Striker, respectively? I have a hard time getting my head wrapped around those two.</p>

<p>Question about stables: will it be possible to have stables not affiliated with a specific promotion, so that it can be used anywhere the members go - like it is the case with tag teams being set to "none"?</p><p> </p><p> Thinking about especially Japan and Mexico, where many big stables follow the members through various promotions.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Adam Ryland" data-cite="Adam Ryland" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If it has one member of a Permanent Unit then the partner automatically gets a large boost to their "desirability" rating in regard to that company and therefore are far more likely to be signed.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Oh that's excellent.</p><p> </p><p> A new question, this time in regards to the numbered tv shows:</p><p> </p><p> Will it be possible to have numbered tour dates as well?</p>

<p>Disappointed to hear that it wasn't possible to include negotiating with a team - but the changes that did make it in sound great. Also thrilled that an admitably cosmetic feature such as numbered TV shows made it in.</p><p> </p><p> Question: will the AI seek to hire permanent units together - or will this new feature only matter for the teams that start in the same promotion?</p>

The changes to stables is, for me, the by far most interesting entry in the developer diary so far. Here's hoping that it will lead to improvements for tag teams and trios as well.

I hope to see an entry on tag teams soon. At the bare minimum, I would like to see the AI respect pre-defined tag teams more and to be able to search for tag teams (based on experience levels) and hire tag teams (not individual workers) to same-length contracts - if the two workers are set to be a 'unit'.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="justtxyank" data-cite="justtxyank" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Love the independent show changes. Very cool.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, letting unemployed workers get more opportunities to work is a welcome addition.</p><p> </p><p> Question: will the naming for independent shows in any way be modable?</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels" data-cite="shawn michaels" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="46105" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Money still is the most important factor in general that moves workers</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's one of the most important factors, but number of dates the workers have to work is probably just as important to them.</p>

Fair enough. I'd like to add that it would both bring immersion (imagine being able to do something special for, say, RAW #200) - and also make it easier to keep track of the new feature to binge tape shows on the same day, I imagine.

Taking eras into account when determining the penalty sounds very reasonable. Quick question: are we getting numbered TV shows this time? Like "RAW #147", "Nitro #2", etc..

I would watch the hell out of that.

<p>A shame to see that number of dates still isn't part of the contractual system. A max cap on dates has been as much of a factor in contract negotiations since at least the 90's.</p><p> </p><p> Will there be a change to how the AI behaves when signing workers? As it is now, I often see AI companies sign even road agents to 3-4 year written deals.</p>

Overness plays a part, yes. But star quality is the deciding factor. If you have 5 guys with identical overness, the guy with the highest SQ will always give the highest bonus. So the game encourages you to only push guys with the highest star quality, which is a shame. I disagree completely. I don't want to start a major discussion about this, because it can quickly derail the thread, but there's more to wrestling than just having the biggest stars on your roster. I'd argue that hot storylines is what decided viewership in the Monday Night Wars, and that hot storylines helped make wrestlers popular. But even if we say that it *is* indeed how the business works; whoever has the biggest stars will "win". Then let me ask you: does overness not represent popularity? So if a guy in TEW has 100 overness everywhere, he is by definition the most popular a wrestler can be? Then how is it realistic to say that the audiences would prefer to watch Wrestler #1 with 100 overness and 90 SQ over Wrestler #2 with 100 overness and 80 SQ? If they both have 100 overness, they should be equally popular and draw an equal amount of fans.

A shame to see that Ryland went back on the area battle change due to some vocal feedback. "Star power" is a terrible way to decide those battles. In TEW 2016, all it does is promote gaming the system and sign and push the 5 guys with the highest SQ you can find. Then you win. And that's the only way. With show grades, you can "win" in many different ways, with many different workers (depending on product settings). There's more variety, more than one way to do things - unlike the "star power" route. A compromise could be show grades + overness instead of show grades + star quality - because with overness, at least you aren't basing the whole thing on one single, arbitrary skill. There are many different skills that can get a worker over.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="gingerdilligaf" data-cite="gingerdilligaf" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="28397" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know vr is a new thing at the moment but just wondering how people find it. Must admit I was thrilled the first time I put on those goggles then the novelty wore off when I realised most games were very short. Hows it gonna go?Will it take off?Will game developers make an effort but most important whats the best vr game u played. For me its rigs or headmaster it will be interesting 2 see other peoples opinions but it seems a bit underused at the mo & i wonder if it end up an idea that will be dead in the water before it can surface</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Me and 3 buddies recently went to a VR cafe where you play hooked up to one of those rigs where you can run and stuff. It was amazing fun! At times, you really forgot that you weren't actually there. Great experience.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="steesh07" data-cite="steesh07" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I've just recently watched Hacksaw Ridge and was definitely one of the best films I've seen in recent memory. Not really a fan of Andrew Garfield, always feels contrived and not really a believable actor. But the story (I didn't actually know it was a true story) was truly epic and definitely going to be worth another watch soon. I preferred it to Dunkirk too which I wasn't expecting.<p> </p><p> Anyone else seen Hacksaw Ridge?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Overrated. Same as Dunkirk.</p>