KevinStorm

FWIW I already do this. The default War Games match in WCW Lives was set to be hardcore based instead of brawl based, and it's content ended up too risky for one of my broadcasters, so I had to clone it and tweak. I don't think altering match types like that is unrealistic.

<p>I'm not "panicking" about anything, and to be honest I'm a little tired of that generalization being thrown at anyone that criticizes penalties or caps. I'm pointing out what I would think would be an obvious contradiction in a product that both caps matches that are too short and penalizes matches that are too long, where "too long" apparently means no more than 4 minutes longer than "too short" (the match was booked for 18 minutes, not over 18 minutes, just to be clear).</p><p> </p><p> I agree that no one would be buying a ticket to GSW to see a 60-minute technical master class. They're buying a ticket to GSW to see guys hit each other with blunt objects and bleed a lot (even though, for some reason, deathmatches are penalized as being too dangerous in what appears to be a deathmatch-oriented company which even has a starting storyline involving deathmatches). That kind of match can only be so good for so long, but that really means that only long matches should be penalized. </p><p> </p><p> Shorter matches should be "naturally" capped by the match type and worker skills, not "artificially" by a game mechanic that says "any match under 15 minutes can't be higher than X". The two mechanisms at the same means that the "sweet spot" to avoid any penalties is 16 minutes at the low end and at most 17 minutes at the high end, which probably means lots of players are going to naturally tend toward booking every match to be 16-17 minutes to avoid caps and penalties. Just look at the thread in General with the person saying they get people over by booking 5v5 matches where all of one team is set to dominate. These kinds of restrictions encourage gamey play styles when the same intention (i.e. deathmatch companies aren't going to book long mat wrestling classics) could be accomplished in a better way.</p><p> </p><p> Also, since we're on the subject of penalties, I rather liked the TEW16 system of not telling the player explicitly what the penalties and bonuses were for a segment or match unless they opt-in by turning on the dirtsheet.</p><p> </p><p> EDIT: Also I must've missed the last time you replied to me bringing this point up. I went back to find the thread and it appears to be gone.</p>

The fans.

I tried a game with GSW, which is "Extreme Hardcore" and has a storyline called "Deathmatch drama," but fans don't like deathmatches. Also matches under 15 minutes are capped, and long matches are penalized. I booked a main event for 18 minutes and it was too long. Product definitions are definitely messed up and contradictory.

Or you could do it realistically by putting them in programs with people around their level, give them wins, and gradually boost them up over time.

The game already sort of does this. A match booked for 6 minutes might go 5:30 or 6:50 or whatever. Booking a match for 6 minutes and it going 10 would be an example of workers going over time, either accidentally or intentionally, which is a thing that should happen for sure now that we have on the fly booking in the game. But just like your example shows, they had 6 minutes booked, not 6-10. The script is even written down to the second.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SirMichaelJordan" data-cite="SirMichaelJordan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="49006" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Somewhat off topic but another thing that I wouldn’t mind changing is booking time overall. I think it would be better if time was booked in ranges. Maybe 7-10 minutes, 10-13 minutes etc. it really don’t make sense for a person to be fatigue for a 7 minute match but would be perfectly fine for a 6 minute match.<p> </p><p> This could also open up a scenario where a selfish worker would go over his allocated time and you’ll have to make adjustments to other segments.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That's not really how it works, though, especially for TV. 7 minutes means 7 minutes.</p><p> </p><p> I like the idea of more selfish workers going over their time sometimes, though, especially with the new on the fly booking.</p>

I agree wage demands should be more varied (though I think popularity should be the primary determinant, since that's what draws money), but I also want to point out that there are a LOT of indy wrestlers who will work for little to no money, so that isn't totally unrealistic. I don't want the game to move back in the direction of TEW 16's ridiculously inflated pay rates for workers.

Bravo. Great post. Linking time penalties to stats instead of arbitrary caps makes so much sense I'm surprised it's not how the game works. Products could even be used to modify how stats affect penalties. So in a product where fans want the action to keep moving, maybe the percentage chance of losing the crowd is higher at say 8 minutes than it would be in a product where fans don't mind long promos. I dig it.

Here's where I posted my sizes suggestion if y'all want to weigh in (pun intended). http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=546082 Maybe more voices will get some changes in.

Yes. Number show ratings feel too gamey and hurt some of the immersion for me. It's a lot easier to understand the difference between a B rated show and a C+ rated show than, say, a 79 and 80.

I posted some suggested changes to sizes over in the suggestions forum. Doubt it'll be implemented though.

There is a different worker profile screen depending on where you select the worker. If I go to the roster, I can see a worker's disposition and perception. If I go to creative, and select a worker from there, it takes me to a profile screen as if they don't work for me already, and I can't see their perception or disposition. Same with the stable screen. It would be nice if I saw the same profile screen regardless of where I select the worker, because otherwise if I see someone as, say, a hot prospect in creative, and I want to know their current perception or whether they're a face or a heel, I have to back out of creative, open roster, and select the worker again.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="48383" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Remember that time The Barbarian, Meng and The Warlord showed up in CHIKARA?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> <em>what</em></p>

<p>The size categories seem a bit too broad. For example, 181 pounds and 229 pounds are both considered lightweight, but that's a pretty major different. Currently the sizes are:</p><p> </p><p> Very Small: up to 140</p><p> Small: 140-180</p><p> Lightweight: 180-230</p><p> Middleweight: 230-260</p><p> Light Heavyweight: 260-290</p><p> Heavyweight: 290-320</p><p> Big Heavyweight: 320-380</p><p> Super Heavyweight: 380+</p><p> Giant: Special cases</p><p> </p><p> This sort of forces all the smaller sized workers into the same one or two groups, while all the bigger workers have more variation in category. Lightweight is especially broad. I'd propose changing them to something like this (spitballing, so not married to these categories): </p><p> </p><p> Very small: <140</p><p> Small: 140-169</p><p> Lightweight: 170-199</p><p> Cruiserweight: 200-229</p><p> Middleweight: 230-259</p><p> Light Heavyweight: 260-289</p><p> Heavyweight: 290-319</p><p> Big Heavyweight: 320-350</p><p> Super Heavyweight: 351+</p><p> Giant: Special Cases</p><p> </p><p> It's not a huge change, but I think these categories would group workers that are similar sized better than the current groupings, especially for real world mods.</p>

I did a search and didn't see this already suggested, but I think the product requirements for match aims (like "Each show will need at least one match aimed as ______") should apply to events only instead of events and TV shows, or maybe it should depend on the style of the company (TV only vs traditional vs touring).

Doink wasn't meant to be a comedy character at first. A better example would be Colt Cabana. He's hilarious, but in-ring he brings it.

Correction: I'm at 200% scaling on the laptop.

My laptop is a Surface Book that runs at 3000x2000 with I think 150% scaling. Desktop is a 35" ultrawide monitor running on 2560x1080. The text is too small on both, but it's not as bad on the desktop, I guess because of the much larger monitor.

People not knowing what terrestrial is makes me feel old. It's an over-the-air broadcast you can pick up with an antenna. CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox all have terrestrial affiliates. The station names usually start with W if they're east of the Mississippi River or K if they're on the west. So where I live, I have WLTX, for example, which I think is CBS. These were all anyone had before cable became a thing.

Your initial response to my post was extremely rude and unnecessary and, again, my post said I COULD do it, but that the process for doing it made no sense and wasn't very user-friendly.

Oh, you're right. That yellow text that looks like the same yellow text on every worker profile, including the ones that don't work for me that I can't click on. My psychic link to Adam that tells me which text is really a hidden menu and which isn't must be broken. Maybe I can get it fixed before the full version comes out.

You mean the name up at the top of the profile screen written in the exact same font and color as the other text around it so it looks nothing like a button? Which in 16 actually looks like something that's clickable? Good to know. Thanks for demonstrating my point for me.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="FlippantFox" data-cite="FlippantFox" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Nowhere to change roles huh?<p> <a href="https://imgur.com/exBGT7z" rel="external nofollow">https://imgur.com/exBGT7z</a></p><p> </p><p> You yourself admitted you only played half-an-hour before posting all that, and like I said, a lot of your stuff is really easily addressable by the game itself. Yeah, there are problems with the UI, literally everyone has already said that, but half of the stuff you're mentioning literally aren't even problems unless you make them problems.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> For someone complaining about me not playing enough to be able to criticize you sure are doing a lot of criticizing of my post despite apparently not reading it. I pretty clearly said I found where to change roles, and where I had to click to do that for Eric Eisen makes absolutely no sense, and is difficult to find for anyone that already does have a role assigned.</p><p> </p><p> Maybe if you took the time to read what I said instead of desperately trying to find a way to de-legitimize my criticisms you'd have noticed that.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="FlippantFox" data-cite="FlippantFox" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You can change people's roles and managers by just clicking on their name, exactly how you would change things about your roster in 2016.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Word? Because in 16 there was an actual button that says "Manager" where you could assign a manager, and if you clicked on a manager's name in the roster, you can click "Managing" to see a list of their clients. There was also a "push" button where you could change their role.</p><p> </p><p> But when I look at Eric Eisen, who doesn't have a role assigned, I have to click on "is considered well known to the fans" to get the screen where I can assign a role: <a href="https://imgur.com/ftrawwt" rel="external nofollow">https://imgur.com/ftrawwt</a></p><p> </p><p> There's nowhere else I can see to click to assign a role, because with other workers who have a role already you click their role which is, for some reason, shown with a very tiny picture above the box that shows their availability.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The handbook, is, again, pretty much the same as it was in 2016, except now it has the added automatic opening to relevant sections. As far as I can see, the handbook is much improved.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Except, as I said, it only sometimes opens to the relevant section.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="47578" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Maybe play a little more than half an hour before desperately searching for things to trash about the game, because a lot of your complaints are just pretty much untrue or easy to find work-arounds by just, y'know, playing the game.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I shouldn't have to dig for work-arounds to make a $35 game usable, and I'd love to play more than half an hour if I didn't start getting headaches from the poor UI. This is the Public Beta Reaction Thread. I posted my reaction, and I'm not the only one having the same reactions.</p>